Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

.

.

<snip>

The 32-year-old Finn, who spent the past two seasons competing in the World Rally Championship, gave everyone at Lotus a bit of a fright when he crashed during a ski trip just weeks after signed a two-year deal with the team.

<snip>

.

.

.

.

<snip>

The 31-year-old has been spending time in a F1 driver-position simulator supplied by Technogym at his Swiss home, and Arnell says it is very close to the real deal.

<snip>

.

.

:unsure:

Edited by ctjet
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

looks like kubica might be out for all of this year.

Robert Kubica has injured his leg in a fall near his home, with sources close to the Polish driver suggesting that he has reopened a fracture that he sustained in his rally accident last year.

It is understood that Kubica fell over on ice in Pietrasanta, where he lives, and subsequently complained of pain in the right leg which was broken in his crash. He was driven to the local hospital for checks.

Although there has been no official statement, it is understood that it has been found that Kubica has reopened the fracture in his right tibia.

Kubica's latest injury setback comes on the same day that Ferrari played down talk that it was planning to test the Polish driver later this year once he was fully recovered.

Sources suggested that the injury is likely to delay his recovery by at least three weeks.

"That was not on our plan," said Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali at the annual Wrooom media event.

"For sure Robert Kubica is a great driver that had a very severe injuries and at the moment he is still working very hard to try to go back to his normal living.

"So before any kind of thinking or discussion of whatever could be, we need to wait and see. For sure that kind of injury is taking a long time to recover so I can say we will wait and see if he is going to recover, but at the moment there is nothing in place."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96958

not looking forward to seeing this.

Lotus's rivals look set to be forced to copy its innovative reactive ride height system ahead of the 2012 season, with the FIA happy the concept is totally legal.

There has been much intrigue in recent days about the mechanism that Lotus was reported to have tried out at the Abu Dhabi young driver test last year.

The mechanical system helps maintain a standard ride height during braking - when often the front of the car would dip down.

Rivals teams are understood to have looked into the system and its legality over recent days - with a report in Gazzetta dello Sport this week suggesting it was driver adjusted by the use of a pedal in the cockpit.

However, if the drivers were changing the ride height of the cars under braking then that would be a breach of the rules.

Article 3.15 of the F1 Technical Regulations states: "With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18 [the DRS], any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited."

AUTOSPORT can reveal, however, that the adjustment to the ride height - which improves aerodynamic performance and stability on the Lotus under braking - does not come from the driver.

Instead it is reactive to brake torque and is linked directly to the suspension - so cannot be classified as a moveable aerodynamic device in the way that independent mass dampers were.

Te fact that the driver is not involved, and that the system is a part of the suspension, means it complies fully with the F1 regulations.

AUTOSPORT understands that Lotus has been in liaison with the FIA throughout the development of the brake system, having first been proposed in 2010 and been given an official green light by the governing as long ago as January last year.

With the FIA happy that the brake system is legal, it means that its main rivals will now have to propose their own systems to the governing body if they want to adopt such a concept for the forthcoming season.

AUTOSPORT also understands that at least one front-running team has already submitted plans for a similar ride-height adjustment device to be used in 2012

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96952

Also the Renault reactive ride height system is sort of old news

Mclaren and Ferrari suspected RBR of having it last year, tried to emulate it and were were told that it would breach the tech regs

Now that Renault have blazed the trail im sure everybody will jump on this cheap and effective system

They always seems to start the season off well so I hope that at least scores them something early on

The development race is what kills them, and now with Mercedes picking up the points as often as Ferrari it doesnt look good. Force India are now actually a force and Renault are starting to look good, I dont see 2012 ending much better than 2011

It'd be quite an achievement if team Willy could amass only 5 points or fewer in '12

Renault power should improve their chances a bunch

Seriously, you'd assume what Cosworth doesn't know about V8 grand prix engines wouldn't be worth knowing, yet that didn't stop it sucking.

The engine development freeze is what killed them, their last engine from 2-3? years ago is what they had to run with. they did get to make some improvments, but missing 3 years woth of data hurt them.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
×
×
  • Create New...